HomeCasesPeter L. Clinco v. Commissioner

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Peter L. Clinco v. Commissioner

US Tax Court · Feb 9, 2026

/ federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytaxtrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "Cacchillo v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 132 (2008)" in support of a signature requirement; the Court found no such case at that citation and that the citation appears fabricated. Outcome: Admonishment.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "Cacchillo v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 132 (2008)" in support of a signature requirement; the Court found no such case at that citation and that the citation appears fabricated. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Miller v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 440 (1971)" to support a proposition about notices of deficiency; the Court observed the actual Miller decision cited by counsel is a T.C. Memo. (1984-448) and the reporter page at 57 T.C. 440 is a different case, so the citation was incorrect/misrepresented and did not support counsel's point. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "Tefel v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 324 (2002)" for a signature-formalities proposition; the Court found no case named Tefel at that citation (page 324 of 118 T.C. is Hillman v. Commissioner) and treated the citation as fabricated.
Why it matters now: Tax Court reads every citation; fabricated Tax Court cites are instantly caught and attributed to AI.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tax Court reads every citation; fabricated Tax Court cites are instantly caught and attributed to AI.

Record details

CourtUS Tax Court

Jurisdictionfederal

CircuitNot recorded

DateFeb 9, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeAdmonishment

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Admonishment

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "Cacchillo v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 132 (2008)" in support of a signature requirement; the Court found no such case at that citation and that the citation appears fabricated.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Miller v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 440 (1971)" to support a proposition about notices of deficiency; the Court observed the actual Miller decision cited by counsel is a T.C. Memo. (1984-448) and the reporter page at 57 T.C. 440 is a different case, so the citation was incorrect/misrepresented and did not support counsel's point.
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "Tefel v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 324 (2002)" for a signature-formalities proposition; the Court found no case named Tefel at that citation (page 324 of 118 T.C. is Hillman v. Commissioner) and treated the citation as fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Peter L. Clinco v. Commissioner?: Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "Cacchillo v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 132 (2008)" in support of a signature requirement; the Court found no such case at that citation and that the citation appears fabricated. Outcome: Admonishment.
Why does Peter L. Clinco v. Commissioner matter for legal AI risk?: Tax Court reads every citation; fabricated Tax Court cites are instantly caught and attributed to AI.
What does the public record establish about Peter L. Clinco v. Commissioner?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Peter L. Clinco v. Commissioner summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueUS Tax Court · Oct 23, 2024same court · misrepresented authority + tax Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and CustomsUKFTT (Tax Chamber) · May 6, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Smith and Commissioner of TaxationAdministrative Review Tribunal · Jan 12, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Zzaman v. HMRCFirst-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) · Apr 3, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Bauche v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueUS Tax Court · May 20, 2025same court · trial HMRC v. GunnarsonUpper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) · Jul 23, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tax Court reads every citation; fabricated Tax Court cites are instantly caught and attributed to AI.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Miller v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 440 (1971)" to support a proposition about notices of deficiency; the Court observed the actual Miller decision cited by counsel is a T.C. Memo. (1984-448) and the reporter page at 57 T.C. 440 is a different case, so the citation was incorrect/misrepresented and did not support counsel's point.

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "Tefel v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 324 (2002)" for a signature-formalities proposition; the Court found no case named Tefel at that citation (page 324 of 118 T.C. is Hillman v. Commissioner) and treated the citation as fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Peter L. Clinco v. Commissioner?

Why does Peter L. Clinco v. Commissioner matter for legal AI risk?

Tax Court reads every citation; fabricated Tax Court cites are instantly caught and attributed to AI.

What does the public record establish about Peter L. Clinco v. Commissioner?

Which source supports this Peter L. Clinco v. Commissioner summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.